Standing Committee F

[Mr. George Stevenson in the Chair]

Hunting Bill

Clause 8 - Tests for registration:

Amendment proposed [9 January]: No. 100, in 
clause 8, page 3, leave out lines 11 to 14 and insert— 
 '(1) The test for registration in respect of proposed hunting is that its utility in preventing or reducing environmental damage outweighs any suffering that may be an unavoidable result of the hunting. 
 (2) In subsection (1) ''environmental damage'' means damage to—.'—[Mr. Gray.]
 Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

George Stevenson: I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
 Amendment No. 101, in 
clause 8, page 3, line 26, leave out subsection (2).
 Amendment No. 174, in 
clause 8, page 3, line 27, leave out from first 'that' to end of line 30 and insert 
 'the proposed hunting is not the cruellest method of making the contribution mentioned in subsection (1).'.
 Amendment No. 24, in 
clause 8, page 3, line 30, leave out 'significantly.'.
 Amendment No. 175, in 
clause 8, page 3, line 30, at end add— 
 '(3) The Secretary of State shall give guidance to the registrar as to the relative cruelty of— 
 (a) trapping and ensnaring, 
 (b) gassing, 
 (c) poisoning, 
 (d) shooting with a rifle by day, 
 (e) shooting with a rifle by night, 
 (f) shooting with a shotgun by day, 
 (g) shooting with a shotgun by night, 
 (h) shooting with an air gun, and 
 (i) killing by dogs.'.

Peter Luff: On a point of order, Mr. Stevenson. Before making my point of order, may I welcome you to the Chair? I know that it will be a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.
 I am grateful to the Clerk for a letter that I received from him on Saturday morning confirming that the blue notice of amendments, published on Friday 10 January, included new clauses 9, 10, 11, 12 and amendments Nos. 176 to 182 in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) when they should have been in the name of the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster). 
 The amendments would have the effect of banning hunting entirely [Interruption.] and I was a little surprised that some groups outside this place attributed them to me and my hon. Friend. I am grateful for this opportunity to correct the record and note that they now stand in the correct name on the amendment paper. I express my appreciation to the Clerk for his efforts.

Peter Bradley: On a point of order, Mr. Stevenson.

George Stevenson: It is always good to test the Chair with points of order. We want to get on, but I shall deal with first point of order.
 I am glad that the confusion has been cleared up. We all want to leave this Room more enlightened than when we came into it, so we are grateful for that.

Peter Bradley: On a point of order, Mr. Stevenson. I was hoping to be the first to welcome you to the Chair but I have been pipped at the post. I see from the record that the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) is shown as having attended our sitting on Tuesday afternoon. I have no recollection of him being present during our deliberations and I have searched the record in vain to find any contribution, or even an intervention, from him. There is none. I am sure that he would be the first to concede that if he was not in the Committee, his name should not appear on the record. This is an opportunity to put the record straight and if I am doing him an injustice, perhaps he would tell the Committee when he arrived.

George Stevenson: I am advised that the hon. and learned Gentleman arrived towards the end of the sitting. The record of attendance appears to be correct.

Edward Garnier: Further to that rather silly point of order, Mr. Stevenson, the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Peter Bradley) knows very well what time I arrived in the Committee. He also knows that if hon. Members appear in the Committee five seconds before the end, as many Labour Members tend to do, they are recorded as having attended. If the hon. Gentleman is interested in our debate, he will allow us to proceed rather than acting like the child that he is.

George Stevenson: I concur with the final sentiment. My advice is that the hon. and learned Gentleman attended the Committee, albeit towards the end, so his attendance is recorded.
 As I look around at a distinguished group of right hon. and hon. Members I realise that the issue is important. As we make progress, the Committee will find that my training has led me to believe that points of order can be used in a somewhat difficult way. I am anxious to move on to the debate and perhaps we could do that.

Gregory Barker: On a point of order, Mr. Stevenson. Do you have any information on whether the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) intends ever to attend the Committee?

George Stevenson: I am sure that hon. Members do not want that. No, I have not.

Peter Bradley: On a point of order, Mr. Stevenson. I do not want to try your patience, but I want to put on the record the fact that the hon. and learned Member for Harborough was so interested in our debate that he appeared about 30 seconds before the Committee adjourned so as to have his name recorded.

George Stevenson: Order. That is not a point of order.

Alun Michael: I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Stevenson. I am sure that you will find it an interesting debate, although it seems that some members of the Committee do not wish to be here for long.
 Towards the end of the last sitting, I drew the Committee's attention to a point to which many hon. Members responded positively: the injunction of Gibbon in ''Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'' that the operation of the wisest laws is 
''imperfect and precarious. They seldom inspire virtue, they cannot always restrain vice. Their power is insufficient to prevent all that they condemn nor can they always punish the actions which they prohibit.''
 That reminds us that we must not just express opinions in the debate, but seek to ensure good law. I have tried to find the right principles that a fair-minded person might regard as common sense in deciding what use of dogs is acceptable to deal with the protection of livestock, crops and the other issues dealt with in clause 8. 
 I want to construct practicable, workable and enforceable legislation. In response to an issue raised earlier in the debate, I argued strongly that the way to achieve that is not—as some amendments would have it—through a single test in which cruelty is balanced against utility, but to approach the matter sequentially. The test should ask if reasonable purposes are achieved by a particular activity and then ask if using dogs in undertaking that outcome is the least cruel method. That sequential approach is the right, sensible and practical way of dealing with the matter. 
 We discussed the need to avoid futile argument over minute differences in what is not an exact science, but an area in which comparisons need to be made about the extent to which suffering is involved in any particular approach. I suggested that we needed the word ''significant'' to protect the tribunal from a range of unsatisfactory opinions. That was an interesting debate because the lay eye may misinterpret the intention of legislation. A word used in everyday parlance may have different implications in legislation. We need to do our best—I took this point from several contributions—to reconcile everyday language with good legal drafting. I continue to reflect on that. To some extent, it is a question of the word being interpreted in context. One has to consider whether the word applied in context—or the context itself—is perfect. I found that debate engaging and continue to reflect on it. 
 I did not respond to amendment No. 175, which would provide for the Secretary of State to give guidance as to the relative cruelty of trapping, ensnaring, gassing, poisoning, shooting with rifle by day and night, shooting with a shotgun by day and 
 night, shooting with an airgun and killing by dogs. It seems that the Secretary of State and several other research organisations and institutions with a professional interest are able to provide information to inform such judgments. That amendment also confuses keeping suffering to a minimum and judging what is cruel. I remind the Committee that we need to make a clear distinction between suffering, which is something experienced by the animal, and cruelty, which is intentionally and unnecessarily to cause suffering. 
 The independent registrar will be able to make use of all the information in the public domain. That includes the findings of the Burns report, the evidence submitted to Lord Burns and to me, evidence from the three days of hearings in Portcullis house in September 2002, and other appropriate sources. Any new research or work done by or for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs can inform those considerations, as can bodies that report to DEFRA. For instance, the legislation allows the registrar to seek advice on biodiversity from the Countryside Council for Wales or, in the case of England, English Nature. It would be for the registrar to reach a decision based on written representations made to him by the applicant and by the prescribed animal welfare bodies, and on any relevant directions given by the tribunal in previous cases—in other words, the decision is to be informed by case law.

Lembit Öpik: I am aware, as is the Minister, that people confuse cruelty with suffering. I want to ensure that we are all using the same definitions, because they are crucial to the debate. Does the Minister agree with my definition that cruelty is a circumstance in which suffering exceeds utility, however one measures it? He mentioned unnecessary suffering. I assume that he is using a definition of unnecessary suffering, not saying that it is unnecessary to cause suffering.

Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman understands the difference between suffering and cruelty, but he muddles them in the way that he poses his version of the test. The starting point in the Bill is to ask whether an activity is necessary. Does one need to prevent depredation of crops, for example? We all know that there is a degree of tolerance in the countryside but that there is a real need to deal with pests if losses exceed what is tolerable. That is part of the give and take that results in balance in the countryside.
 Therefore, one must first establish the necessity of controlling the numbers of particular pests and then ask whether there is a less cruel way of dealing with them than options that include the use of dogs, such as hunting, ratting and so on. By applying the two tests sequentially, one avoids the difficulty that the hon. Gentleman is getting into by saying that one can have a bit of cruelty if it is justified by utility. The very definition of cruelty as unnecessary or avoidable suffering makes it difficult to strike a balance. It is sensible to take the least-suffering rather than the least-cruel approach. That is one of the strongest arguments that can be made for the way in which the legislation is drafted. 
 To a degree, I have anticipated what I wanted to say later, so I shall cut that a little short. However, the matter is central to the consideration of the clause and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising it. 
 If I understood the hon. Gentleman correctly, he also said that it was generally agreed during the Portcullis house hearings that utility includes recreational use, but in fact that was not the case. Indeed, I was struck and pleased by how little mention there was of recreational use, which demonstrated to me how well the hearings focused on real issues of utility such as the protection of livestock, crops and so on, which appear in clause 8. 
 I wish to mention the comments of the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray). [Interruption.] I got it right that time. I hesitated, because the hon. Gentleman rightly is keen to educate me in English geography. He commented on reported speculation by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) that the principles in the Bill might in the future be applied to sports that matter to him, specifically fishing, shooting and the grand national. 
 I assure members of the Committee and, indeed, the coarse fishing association, which has raised the point, that the tests are sensible for mammals but could not sensibly be attached to non-mammal species or activities other than hunting. In the last sitting, the hon. Member for North Wiltshire stretched logic to breaking point in making his argument, as did the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer). There is a tendency in making judgments to go to extremes and make implications that pass the breaking point. 
 If the hon. Member for North Wiltshire thinks that an activity such as fishing is cruel, he may choose to apply such tests to it and other activities; that is a matter for him. However, I would disagree with him. Parliament has to decide which activities need to be controlled or prohibited and on what grounds any control or prohibition should be exercised. Controls or prohibitions should be sensible, proportionate and consistent. The Bill deals with hunting: that is to say, with one mammal or group of mammals being set on another mammal or group of mammals. We have to find the right principles in relation to that. I hope to persuade the Committee that I have established the right principles in the Bill by focusing on the prevention and eradication of cruelty and that those principles are appropriate for the legislation. The sort of extrapolation that has been attempted is entirely inappropriate.

Hugo Swire: The Minister will understand that we are genuinely concerned that the Bill will have implications for the shooting and angling communities. I refer to something that has made some of us nervous. Jackie Ballard—who, I am grateful to say, has been replaced by my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Flook)—is now chief executive of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, which is doubtless a body on which the Secretary of State will call for advice. In a recent article in The Daily Telegraph Jackie Ballard is reported as saying:
''I don't like coarse fishing. Fishing for food is probably acceptable, but it's cruel to stick a hook in a fish's jaw and then fling it back.''
 If Committee members think that I am quoting selectively, I am happy to make that article available to the Committee, and in particular to the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami), who questioned me about that last time.

Alun Michael: Jackie Ballard, like any other individual representing an organisation, is entitled to express her own views and say what she thinks. Some Opposition Members are making a variety of remarks with which their party and their leader would not agree. It would be sensible if the hon. Gentleman listened precisely to my comments. He suggested that he has a genuine concern; I am at pains to nail what I believe is not in fact a genuine concern—there is no reason for genuine concern.
 I appreciate that my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West, who is a passionate supporter of fishing, has genuine concerns that he wants to be addressed and I am at pains to do that. I also accept that coarse fishermen want to be sure where they stand and that there will be no extrapolation. That is why I have been at pains to point out, on a number of occasions, that we have a manifesto commitment to enable Parliament to resolve hunting with dogs and that we have an equally strong manifesto commitment not to interfere with the sports of fishing and shooting. That is absolutely clear. 
 The matter is also clear in relation to the application of principles. I have sought principles that can be applied in the legislation for what happens when people set one mammal or group of mammals on another mammal or group of mammals. The tests can be applied consistently in that context. That is the situation. With the greatest respect, anybody who suggests that we are seeking to apply the principles more widely either has genuine concerns, which they should now set aside, or is simply being mischievous or worse.

James Gray: I would not suggest that the Minister seeks to do anything about shooting or fishing in the Bill; it is obvious that he does not. However, if it were accepted that the utility of hunting with dogs is outweighed by the cruelty and that became a central part of the Bill, it would be extraordinary if organisations such as the RSPCA, led by Jackie Ballard, did not subsequently—not necessarily in this Parliament or while the Minister still holds his current post—say, ''You have applied that principle to mammals, let us apply it to other animals.''

Alun Michael: That is an extremely devious intervention. I set out the applications of the principles very clearly, yet the hon. Gentleman suggests that some individuals outside who are concerned about the welfare of fish might—[Interruption.] Will the hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) restrain his wish to be mischievous for a moment? Those individuals might wish to apply those principles to an issue on which Parliament has never shown the slightest inclination to intervene. The Labour party—I do not know about the
 Conservative party—has no intention of intervening. I say to Opposition Members that it is possible to see straight through their transparent attempt to try to draw those who are interested in fishing and shooting into the pro-hunting camp. Government Members are not pro or anti-anything; we are simply trying to deal with the cruelty associated with the hunting of mammals. Opposition Members should give up their attempts to confuse the public and listen to the clear principles that I have set out on many occasions in the past.

Peter Luff: I want the Minister to understand that the argument is not a cynical attempt to confuse the public. Some 30 years ago, the House of Commons would not have been interested in banning hunting with hounds. [Hon. Members: ''It was.''] It was nowhere near as interested as it is now, and 50 years ago it would certainly not have been interested. The League Against Cruel Sports says,
''The League is neutral on the issue of angling . . . The League is not inclined to become involved in the argument about fishing as we need to concentrate our resources on abolishing the brutal bloodsports that include setting dogs on to wild mammals.''
 It does not take a rocket scientist to work out what that means. Once it has banned 
''brutal bloodsports that include setting dogs on to wild mammals'',
 it will move on to other issues. The Minister must make sure that the intellectual integrity that he has brought to the process is capable of resisting those kinds of extensions to the campaign.

George Stevenson: Order. I am a little bit worried that interventions are becoming speeches.

Alun Michael: The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) might like to consider the way in which we, when we were in opposition, pointed out the direction in which the Thatcher Government were taking the country. We pointed out what had been said by Members of Parliament and Conservative party think-tanks; we did not point out what was said by right-wing groups that had no association with the Conservative party. We drew our predictions, which were right, of the dire situation into which that Government were taking us from the mouths of Members of Parliament and Conservative party thinkers. The hon. Gentleman is being unintentionally mischievous in quoting comments made by individuals from different organisations. They have a right to their views, but there are others who believe that the earth is flat.

Peter Bradley: They are over there.

Alun Michael: My hon. Friend is trying to steal my best lines. Although people who believe that the earth is flat are wrong, they are entitled to think it. Anybody who has a genuine concern about fishing can clear their concern from their minds for once and for all.
 The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire suggested that, 30 years ago, views in the House would have been different. Of course, views change over time; 250 to 300 years ago, people would not have 
 talked about ending bear baiting or cock fighting. Over the past 50 years, the House has debated hunting time and time and time again. We are back here because the issue has not been resolved. It will be resolved, but it will take a serious debate. Opposition Members must understand the way in which the Bill is structured and not approach it in an illogical and inappropriate way.

Andrew George: We still have not had a clear answer from the pro-hunting lobby as to why it has not brought proposed to the Bill to repeal the legislation that banned bear baiting and dog fighting. The Minister referred to the issue's history; he will be aware that, in 1835, the SPCA—as it was then known—and MPs supporting legislation openly wanted to go a stage further and ban foxhunting and stag hunting. That was much more of an issue in those days, so it is inappropriate for the pro-hunting lobby to argue that there is—

George Stevenson: Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but interventions must be just that, please.

Alun Michael: I take the hon. Gentleman's point on board. The Conservative Members on the Committee seem to want to pick and choose the parts of history that they remember. The hon. Gentleman is right to reinforce my point about the length of time for which hunting has been an issue in this House. In our last debate, Conservative Members sought to quote John Stuart Mill at us. However, I said—last Thursday's Hansard will show you this, Mr. Stevenson, as you missed that contribution—that human beings have a responsibility to protect animals against cruelty. That should not be a point of argument; the Countryside Alliance has endorsed the idea that cruelty should not be allowed. The law should ensure that it is cruelty that is targeted and eradicated; as I am trying to make clear, that is the central purpose of clause 8. We want to apply principles consistently in activities that involve mammals being set on other mammals.

Lembit Öpik: On clause 8(2), a report in The Western Mail on 11 January said that the League Against Cruel Sports claimed, in discussing two of the several ways in which foxes are killed, that neither was humane. The two ways referred to were hunting with dogs and shooting. Is it not reasonable to infer that, if one of the key organisations now says that both those methods are inhumane, banning hunting with dogs could lead to concerns being raised about the other approach, which might devastate the opportunity to control foxes?

Alun Michael: No, I do not think that that is a reasonable conclusion. Of course, hon. Members on both sides should listen to what a variety of organisations have to say, including the League Against Cruel Sports, the RSPCA, the Countryside Alliance, organisations involved in farming and land management and those concerned with animal welfare. We should listen to them all but we have a responsibility then to make judgments and come to decisions. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that that should be our approach. Simply to say that Fred Bloggs in that organisation over there has said x or y
 would take the Committee away from the sensible application of logic and consistency.
 I have suggested that it is difficult to generalise in any legislation. If we could take a principle and apply it universally, we should need only one piece of legislation to set out our basic principles and everything would flow from that. Life is not like that, nor is legislation. However, we need to apply principles within the general aims of the legislation. 
 There are precedents for the utility and least-suffering tests in existing animal welfare legislation. For example, the Deer Act 1991 involves the utility test and the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 involves the least-suffering test. I am not inventing new concepts. Those two concepts, when brought together and applied sequentially rather than in some sort of balance, provide a solution to the problems of the things we should ban because they are cruel, the things we should control so that they cannot be undertaken in a cruel way and the things we should allow because they are not cruel. Essentially, that is at the heart of the way in which our legislation should develop. 
 I have already covered amendment No. 100, which seeks to balance cruelty and utility rather than apply both principles. I am pleased that the amendment involves both principles—utility and cruelty—and thus recognises the validity of the approach that I am developing. However, the attempt to trade off the two principles in a single test undermines both. The implication that a bit of necessity could lead us to allow a bit of cruelty is not logical. I hope that I have persuaded those who supported the amendment that the wording in the Bill is to be preferred. To put it the other way round, there is no sense in allowing an activity that involves suffering unless it has utility; unless it is necessary. Otherwise, by definition, that activity would be cruel. Parliament decides to limit or forbid an activity on the basis of eradicating cruelty. 
 As I said earlier, we must unpack the concept of cruelty into the two elements of necessity—or avoidability—and suffering. 
Mr. Nicholas Soames (Mid-Sussex) rose—

Alun Michael: We explored the question a few minutes ago, when the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) was not in his place, but I am happy to go back to it because it is so central, if it would help.

Nicholas Soames: I have been in my place since the beginning of the Minister's disappointing speech. In view of the last passage that the Minister read out, will he clarify why it is not cruel to hunt rats with terriers? On his thesis of cruelty and utility, why is it not cruel to hunt rats?

Alun Michael: That is probably the most disappointing intervention in the Committee so far because it shows that, even when the hon. Gentleman is in his place, he is not listening. I have clarified that point on more than one occasion.

James Gray: Answer the question.

Alun Michael: Will the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) kindly mind his own manners instead of seeking to—[Hon. Members: ''Oh!'']

George Stevenson: Order. I shall need every right hon. and hon. Member's help in the Committee. I shall be careful to ensure that all members mind their manners.

Alun Michael: I am grateful, Mr. Stevenson. I shall repeat what I have said on a number of occasions and I apologise to you for the fact that this involves repetition.
 On the basis of the two principles, ratting is considered as follows. Is it necessary? The answer, if we look at clause 8(1), is that it is, for the protection of livestock and crops, and so on. Is it the least cruel method of undertaking the activity? The alternatives are poisoning and trapping, both of which raise considerable issues about the suffering not only of the quarry species, but of other species that may be inadvertently poisoned or trapped. It follows that the activity of ratting passes both tests. That is why it is shown as an exception in the Bill. It is very straightforward.

Nicholas Soames: Will the Minister clarify for the benefit of the Committee, and all those outside with an abiding interest in the subject, which livestock are at threat from rats?

Alun Michael: Rats carry disease. [Interruption.] A body of evidence shows the nuisance caused by rats. On the basis of that evidence, the utility test is passed. It is very straightforward. [Interruption.]

George Stevenson: Order. It is becoming a little difficult to hear the Minister, and I wonder whether we could allow him to be heard.
Mr. Gray rose—

George Stevenson: Is the Minister giving way?

Alun Michael: I will give way to the hon. Member for North Wiltshire. I have made this point on a number of occasions without any challenge from him, but clearly he has had second thoughts.

James Gray: I am grateful to the Minister for allowing me to intervene. I shall seek to do so as courteously as I can. I should have thought that asking him to answer the question was not all that discourteous, but I apologise if he thought it was. He does not like answering questions.
 The issue here is not so much whether ratting is the right way to deal with rats. The question that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex wanted to have elucidated was why the Minister should say, ''I believe that ratting and rabbiting are all right. I can prove that clearly this morning. I believe that deer hunting and hare coursing are not all right. The registrar may not decide those matters. The registrar may decide only on hunting with hounds.'' Why should that be the case? Why are they not all included under one of the tests?

Alun Michael: We want the registrar and the tribunal to be involved in cases where there is a balanced judgment to be made and not where the outcome is clear. I made that point not only in my statement in March last year, but again in correspondence, when I sought views from all the organisations with an interest in this issue on both the land management and the animal welfare sides. I made my conclusions clear in my statement to the House in
 December and I set them out again on 7 January in the Committee. There is nothing new in what I have said. I am being consistent and basing the outcome, which is in the Bill, on the clear evidence that is available. I suggest that the hon. Member for North Wiltshire spends a little time in the Library if he is not satisfied with it instead of taking up a vast amount of bureaucratic time on a conclusion that is absolutely clear.

James Gray: The Minister alleges that, in the letter that he sent out in April seeking views on the forthcoming Bill, he laid out the principle of separating out ratting and rabbiting—and, indeed, deer hunting and hare coursing—from the central part of the Bill. I have the letter that he sent out. There is no mention in it of his intention to separate out those categories. That intention only emerged in October or November in the newspapers. Will he acknowledge that he made a mistake when he said that he had laid out those principles in advance? He did not do so. That was a late intervention.

Alun Michael: No, that is not true. I said that when I made my statement in March, I made clear my judgment on the way in which principles should apply and I suggested that their application to ratting would lead to one conclusion. I did so in a variety of discussions and in response to questions. The issue was developed further when I circulated the letter in May, in which I responded to the evidence that had come in to that date. I said in paragraph 38:
''Dogs are used as a means to control rat populations and are regarded by those who undertake it mostly as a means of pest control, where poison cannot be used safely.''
 There has been plenty of opportunity for any evidence to be produced that ratting is not an acceptable activity, and the evidence that has come in has been clear and on one side. I am surprised that the hon. Member for North Wiltshire wants every occasion when a person needs to use dogs to be subject to an application of the kind provided for in clause 8.

Tony Banks: ''Ah.''] I am delighted to receive such a response from Opposition Members. I hope that I shall live long enough to disprove their attitude towards me in terms of a warm welcome.
 When we last considered a similar Bill, many Opposition Members used the fact that ratting could fall within its provisions as a way to attempt to defeat it. Now that my right hon. Friend the Minister has tried to answer the point, they return to it. It merely indicates that they have no fresh arguments to bring to the Bill, but that they will keep coming back to the same tired old arguments; they are trying to confuse the Committee and, more significantly, the public.

Alun Michael: I warmly welcome my hon. Friend to the Committee. I am sure that, as always, he will enlighten our discussions. It has not taken him more than a few minutes to appreciate the way in which Conservative Members approach the Committee. I am sure that that is no surprise and that he will have
 noticed that they have welcomed his arrival in the Committee as if they see fresh opportunities for sport. However, I hope that we shall be able to concentrate, as I know my hon. Friend will wish to do, on the serious principles in the Bill.
 As I said earlier, and it is a crucial point, we must unpack the concept of cruelty into the two elements of necessity—or avoidability, if one looks at the matter the other way round—and suffering. A number of Members have rightly identified the human element of responsibility or intention and the difference between animal activity and the use of mammals by human beings. We cannot judge an activity in terms of cruelty unless we have first said whether it is necessary. If it is not necessary, as in the case of hare coursing—it has no utility, so it cannot be necessary—the cruelty test cannot be satisfied. If it is necessary, as is the control of pests in a variety of circumstances—for instance, we have just referred to ratting—we must ask a simple question; can we achieve that utility or necessary control in a way that causes less suffering? If there were such a method, it would be cruel deliberately to choose another method that involves more suffering. Applying the tests sequentially is sensible and practical.

Lembit Öpik: On the definition, which is very important, the Minister sometimes says ''least cruelty'' and sometimes says ''least suffering''. Given that we are trying to eliminate cruelty, it would be helpful to agree that, although it is easy for us to discuss the concept of least cruelty, the term is not really accurate. He is really talking about least suffering. I am not trying to trick him, but I want to make sure that we are using the same language.

Alun Michael: Yes, the hon. Gentleman is right. Consciously or through the law, human beings who use the method that involves the least suffering are seeking a method that is not cruel, and he is right to clarify that point.
 The Conservative approach has the same flaw as the Middle Way Group's proposals. By failing to separate the two tests, it would license cruelty. My approach is more logical. Indeed, it is the logical approach, which we used in taking evidence in Portcullis house in September, where the Campaign for the Protection of Hunted Animals, the Middle Way Group and the Countryside Alliance adopted it. On day one, we considered what was necessary. On day two, we considered what was cruel and how one compared degrees of suffering. On day three, we considered how one could apply the tests of utility and cruelty in reaching good legislation. 
 The principles were set out in my statement last March, and I have repeatedly invited every Member of the House, every Member of another place and every relevant organisation—in other words, everyone with an interest in the topic—to provide evidence. As a result of trying consistently to apply the tests of cruelty and utility to all the issues raised by the Burns report and the evidence from our hearings, I came to the view that the tests should be applied sequentially in the way set out in clause 8.

Rob Marris: The Minister talks about logic, but the logic of clause 8(2)
 is not as elegant as it should be. As I read it, one has to show that a method other than hunting is significantly less painful than hunting; hence amendment No. 24, about which we have talked. Would he consider an amendment to turn that around, by making one show that hunting was likely to cause significantly less pain than any other method?

Alun Michael: That would be equally consistent with the principles that I am setting out. The important point is that one makes the comparison by asking what element of suffering is involved in a particular activity and by undertaking the activity as efficiently as one can with the method that involves the least suffering.

Peter Luff: How can we make the comparison of which the Minister speaks when we know so little about the consequences of shooting? The International Fund for Animal Welfare says that wounding rates for foxes as a result of shooting are unknown, but the preliminary results of a study being carried out by Bristol university—he will know who did the study—suggest that the rates are likely to be low. We do not know the facts and are trying to find them out, but how can we make the comparison without knowing them?

Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman helps me to make one point. There are a variety of issues in relation to hunting with dogs, which is a complicated area because there are a variety of activities. It is not as if there is just one activity. We tend to talk about redcoat hunting of foxes as though it were the only form of hunting, which it is not. The quality of the evidence available is variable. In some cases, it is clear and persuasive. In the case of ratting, it is clear in one direction; in the case of deer hunting, it is clear in the other direction. In other cases, it is generally clear but fuzzy at the edges. Like all parliamentarians, we have to allow for the possibility that our judgments might be wrong. It is our responsibility to look objectively at the evidence. I have spent more months than I should have liked in giving every opportunity for every available piece of evidence to be put to me to allow me to come to as balanced a judgment as possible.
 Attention is becoming more focused on what farmers can do to protect their crops and animals, and on things such as wounding rates. Some people strongly support shooting; for instance, the British Association for Shooting and Conservation is taking steps to try to improve the skill and training of those people who undertake shooting activities, which is welcome. The situation is not static and the balance can be affected. 
 Lord Burns makes the point that the balance in favour of lamping depends on it being carried out in a proper way by people with the appropriate skills. The Bill does not cover that matter, but the Government, Members of Parliament and the organisations are responsible for improving the quality of lamping, which is why I am happy to support BASC's view that it is part of its role to encourage the quality and skill with which those activities, which are legal, are undertaken in order to minimise suffering. That is an entirely virtuous approach.

Gregory Barker: Which clear and persuasive evidence from a veterinary, clinical or scientific source unambiguously told the Minister that shooting foxes caused less suffering than hunting?

Alun Michael: I quoted the Burns report in the last sitting, and I am making a judgment on the whole of the evidence, which is available to the hon. Gentleman in the Library. One of the troubles with the issue is that people want a one-sentence conclusion, but they need to look at the evidence. I hope all members of the Committee have viewed the videos of the hearings in Portcullis house, or have at least read the transcripts, because they were extremely illuminating. Some pieces of evidence are conclusive while others leave one with questions.
 Lord Burns touched on the loss of lambs in the section of his report on the predation of lambs, which starts at paragraph 5.12 on page 84. In paragraph 5.14, he states: 
''The best estimate seems to be that a low percentage (less than 2 per cent.) of otherwise viable lambs are killed by foxes in England and Wales.''
 As the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) acknowledged, there can be considerable variations between different farms and different areas. Lord Burns also states that 
''once a fox starts taking lambs, it is likely to continue doing so.''
 Of course, foxes also kill and feed on a variety of other species such as rats, mice and rabbits in a way that is often useful to farmers; that is why there is, in general terms, a degree of tolerance of their activities. Indeed, a major part of their diet is useful to the farmer. All those things need to be borne in mind in reaching judgments in particular circumstances.

Adrian Flook: By way of elucidation, following the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Barker), there is a veterinary opinion that as many as 40 per cent. of foxes shot by rifle or shotgun are wounded. That statistic is from the 2000 inquiry by Reynolds and MacDonald, and I offer it further to inform the Minister.

Alun Michael: That is another part of the evidence, which is available to all of us in Committee, on which we base our judgments. I take the hon. Gentleman back to the conclusion of Lord Burns, who looked at the evidence very carefully, to which I referred a few moments ago and quoted in a previous sitting. The point is that the registrar and the tribunal will be able to take into account not only information that is available to us now, but new developments in the scientific understanding of the relative suffering caused by various control methods. I welcome the increasing interest in making comparisons and trying scientifically and clinically to understand the differences between different methods, rather than, as is too often the case, approaching the issue on the basis of prejudice and slogans.
 I am certain that evidence, research and scientific knowledge will develop. The tribunal and the registrar will be able to apply that knowledge on a case-by-case basis. We will not need to amend the Bill in order to take fresh scientific evidence into account. 
 I have to counter the tendency to bring into the debate a variety of issues that do not fall within the ambit of the Bill and have nothing to do with hunting. I suppose that that is inevitable. Sometimes it is helpful as a means of testing principles, but in many cases the issues raised by Committee members involve asking whether suffering can be reduced, as in the case of halal slaughter—referred to by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary—whether we accept the argument of utility in terms of the need to control pests and mammal populations, or whether we feel there is no need to intervene in activities such as fishing and shooting. 
 The point is that year after year, Parliament has made clear its will to end the cruelty involved in hunting with dogs. We can legislate to end cruelty, and Parliament—especially the House of Commons—has expressed the wish to do so. However, we also need to deal with the hunting of mammals—including foxes, rats and deer—by other mammals on a basis that is consistent and is easily and clearly enforceable. I do not underestimate the importance of those points. Consistency is not always easy to achieve, as the quotation that I made at the beginning of my contribution today demonstrated. Enforceability is an issue, as has been shown by the situation in Scotland, and that would certainly have applied to a Bill different to the one that I brought before the House. 
 Clause 8 is important because it is the basis of an ability to deal consistently with the cruelty involved in setting one mammal—or group of mammals—on others. I ask all hon. Members to look at the evidence again and ask whether the application of clause 8 will end cruel activity. I am absolutely sure that it will. I ask them to question whether it will still allow necessary pest control. I am absolutely convinced that it will. I ask colleagues whether it will be effective and enforceable in law. Again, I am confident that it will. Finally, they should ask whether its application will correspond to the scientific and veterinary evidence of suffering. I believe that it will. 
 The golden thread that has run through from the start of the inquiry to the conclusions of the Bill is that we should deal with cruelty in a consistent way, to eradicate cruelty and recognise the utility of those things that are necessary for the management of livestock and land. Therefore, I strongly commend clause 8 to the Committee. I realise that we are dealing only with the first set of amendments. Many hon. Members stated at the beginning that they wanted to tease out what the Bill will do, and what clause 8 will do. The debate has helped us to do that.

James Gray: First, on behalf of my hon. Friends, I welcome you to your place, Mr. Stevenson. My experience of serving under you in Committees is that you are tough but fair. On issues of great significance, such as those that we are discussing today, it is important that you apply that tough but fair approach, which is your hallmark. I also welcome the hon. Member for West Ham, who has made such
 distinguished contributions to the debates over the years. It was disappointing that he was unable to be here last week for any of the three sittings, but we look forward to his contributions. One or two other members of the Committee have not yet made their first appearance, but I hope that they will in the not-too-distant future.
 In discussing the application of the principle of least suffering, I ask Government Members to concede one point. All of us in this Room, as well as those who take part in all forms of country activities, seek the least possible suffering for foxes, mink, hare, rabbits, rats or the animals on which they prey. Of course, most people in the countryside—everyone in the countryside—seek the least suffering. In my experience, hunts people are more concerned with the welfare of horses, hounds and foxes, deer and other prey than many people who would ban their activities. It is only reasonable to ask Government Members to accept that that is the case. It is therefore important to reach a correct conclusion about the Bill's definition of least suffering. We all want least suffering—that is the point from which we all start. We are debating not whether one group of people is cruel and another not, but the means by which least suffering can be achieved for quarry animals in the countryside. 
 Some Committee members take the view that it is an obvious and unassailable truth that hunting any mammal species with dogs is by definition the cruellest method. I need go no further than this Room, in which we debated the last hunting Bill in the House, and I quote no less a figure than the Minister. He said, 
''the situation is clear; the House of Commons has decided what it believes is right for the future''
 and that—I am summarising—a ''muddle'' would have arisen from the Middle Way Group, whose 
''proposals did not offer clarity . . . The House of Commons decided that there should be an end to hunting with dogs''.—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 30 January 2001; c. 221.]
 That quote from the Minister, when he was discussing hunting in this very Room before the last general election shows plainly that his aim in life is to end the hunting of animals with dogs and not, as he now claims in an even-handed way, to judge its relative cruelty and utility. Some people in this Room believe that that aim goes without saying. 
 Incidentally, one of the most disappointing things about the Minister's entire approach to the Bill is his notion that it is obvious that ratting and rabbiting must not be subjected to the cruelty and utility tests and that it is obvious—or unassailable, which is the word that he keeps using—that deer hunting and hare coursing are so cruel that they must be banned without any consideration. He is not ready to apply the tests of utility and cruelty to those activities or to allow the registrar, the tribunal or the High Court, on a point of law, to come to any view on them. He, in his arrogant way, says that he has decided in advance, that he will lay down in the Bill that those activities are cruel or allowable and that he will not allow the tribunal to come to a view on them.

Alun Michael: I shall repeat something that I have said several times. Those activities are different not because different principles apply but because applying the principles shows that there are no circumstances in which they can satisfy the tests. It would merely create an unsustainable amount of bureaucracy to apply part 2 to those activities, rather than treating them as, on the one hand, exceptions and, on the other, activities that can never be acceptable.

James Gray: The Minister makes a most useful point. There will, of course, be an enormous amount of bureaucratic difficulty with his proposed solution. However, his comment highlights his change in thinking. When he sat here a year or so ago, he said that hunting with dogs was by definition a bad thing that should be banned. I have just quoted from Hansard to that effect. He is now saying that stag hunting and hare coursing are by definition bad and must be banned but that foxhunting, mink hunting and other forms of hunting with hounds should not necessarily be banned but are activities in which relative cruelty and utility must be balanced. That view accepts the principle that there is some future use in the countryside for hunting with dogs. That is a useful change in the Minister's approach. He now accepts by definition, under the Bill, that there is some purpose to hunting with dogs.

Alun Michael: I am making that judgment for activities that are excepted. However, for activities that will be considered by the registrar and the tribunal, it will be for them to examine the evidence. People who wish to undertake any such activity will have the opportunity to prove their case and show that the activity is necessary and not cruel.

James Gray: The Minister is having some difficulty in justifying his position. Only six months ago, he said, straightforwardly and clearly, that hunting with dogs was by definition cruel and should be banned, which was the decision taken by the House of Commons. He is now saying that deer hunting and hare coursing are obviously cruel and must be banned without any discussion on the part of the registrar or the tribunal, which should have no interest in such matters. In effect, he is saying, ''Such things are obviously cruel. I am clear about that. But I am no longer as clear as I used to be about foxhunting, which will be discussed by the registrar and the tribunal.'' Without question, the Bill shows that the Minister has changed position and I very much welcome his tacit acceptance that there is some purpose in the use of dogs for hunting in the countryside.

Peter Luff: Perhaps there is a pragmatic, common-sense argument for excluding rabbits and rats from the Bill because of all the people who go rabbiting and ratting—I think we should exclude foxhunting on the same grounds—but there are only two deer hunts in the country—[Hon. Members: ''Three.''] Three. Allowing the registrar to reach a judgment on deer hunting would not overburden him.

James Gray: My hon. Friend makes a good point and we will talk about deer hunting later.

John Gummer: Does my hon. Friend agree that the outside world will not miss the fact that people have an affinity with deer that they do not have with rats and that the real reason for the distinction has nothing to do with what the Minister says it does? The Minister is acting in an entirely anthropomorphic and immoral way.

James Gray: My right hon. Friend makes a good point. Certain kinds of animals have a particular image and some people might have anthropomorphic and sentimental thoughts about the best way of dealing with them. That is why the Minister's change of heart is so interesting. Not so long ago, he would have appeared on the steps of the House of Commons with the hon. Member for Worcester, cuddling a fox to demonstrate that a fox is a cuddly and marvellous thing. Now he is apparently saying that the use of dogs may be acceptable in certain circumstances. That is the most interesting subject that we discussed on Thursday. We are talking about the circumstances in which it may be sensible for the registrar and tribunal to judge that it is allowable to use dogs for hunting vermin of one sort or another in the countryside. We are considering the definition of cruelty and later we will consider the definition of utility.
 For the registrar to come to a view, it will be necessary for him to have some means of judging whether hunting an animal with dogs is more or less cruel than dealing with it in other ways. It is no good saying, as the Minister did, that the registrar has access to all sorts of information so it will be easy for him to make a judgment. Of course he has access to all kinds of information; it would be surprising if he did not. However, he also needs guidance from Parliament as to whether hunting with dogs is more or less cruel than lamping with a rifle or with a shotgun, shooting during the day, poisoning, snaring, gassing, or shooting with an airgun. To do his job, the registrar needs some guidance from us, as legislators, as to which of those things we believe to be more cruel. 
 When we were discussing the matter last week, it was interesting that nobody attempted to come to any clear conclusion about which method is the cruellest. I challenged hon. Members constantly; I asked whether shooting was more or less cruel than hunting with dogs, but they were unable to produce a clear answer. To help them come to a decision, I will make a couple of points about shooting.

Lembit Öpik: For the sake of clarity—I am not being pedantic—I have discussed terminology with the Minister and what we are trying to compare is not so much cruelty as suffering. Cruelty means something slightly different. We are trying to measure comparative suffering. Secondly—this is almost a rhetorical question—does the hon. Gentleman agree that we are trying not to get to the point of least suffering, but to determine what level of suffering is acceptable? Presumably we are not trying to eliminate all but one method from the repertoire of choices.

James Gray: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point about the difference between suffering and cruelty. Committee members must try to control their remarks and remember the distinction. It is a good distinction and I accept it; inevitably, from time to time, we slip
 into using ''cruelty'' where ''suffering'' would be more appropriate.
 The hon. Gentleman is also right to say that we must not rule out all but the least cruel method of controlling pests—although I think that I am right in saying that that is precisely what his amendment, which we discussed last week, sought to do. None the less, he is right to say that there may be a number of allowable methods of dealing with mammals. The Government want to rule out the method that causes most suffering, which, in their view, may well be the hunting of mammals with dogs. However, in working out the hierarchy to come to a conclusion, it is necessary to have some view as to whether hunting with dogs is more or less cruel than the other methods of dealing with mammals. 
 Lord Burns and the scientists who attended the Portcullis house hearings went to some lengths to say that there is no scientific evidence to show whether snaring, gassing, poisoning or different types of shooting are more or less cruel than hunting with dogs. However, when my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle asked a moment ago for the scientific evidence that demonstrates that hunting with dogs is more or less cruel than shooting, the Minister waffled on about 180 letters in the House of Commons Library. We want to know what the scientific evidence is on the matter.

Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman reverts to unhelpful generalisation. I point out again that we are not comparing levels of cruelty. He has just had a reminder of that in the intervention of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire. A consideration of whether a particular activity involves more or less suffering is necessary to inform the debate. Individuals must make some of the decisions about the way in which activities are carried out if they are to avoid cruelty, and some of the judgments must be made by the tribunal. However, Parliament must also make judgments. This discussion is about higher and lower degrees of suffering. It is only when one has that knowledge that activities can be cruel—one cannot unconsciously be cruel. One may unconsciously cause suffering, but cruelty is intentional or avoidable suffering.

James Gray: The Minister says that Parliament must come to some view about which methods are crueller. That has happened in the sense that he, not Parliament, has come to the conclusion that ratting and rabbiting are not cruel under his definition but that stag hunting and hare coursing are, and that is shown by the way in which the Bill is drafted. We shall find out whether Parliament agrees with him. However, the Minister has no view at all about the middle group of animals. He says that the registrar, a paid civil servant, must decide whether mink hunting is better done with mink hounds. Incidentally, it is interesting that this past week Government agencies came to the conclusion that the only sensible way of catching mink is by using hounds, particularly in South Uist.
 The Minister plans to say to a paid civil servant, ''I am sorry, we as legislators cannot tell you whether catching mink using hounds or shooting, poisoning, trapping or snaring them is the most cruel method. We do not know, because the scientific research has not been done. That is not a matter that we can discuss. As the registrar, Mr. Civil Servant, you must come to the difficult view as to whether we should allow mink hunting to continue or whether the poor little blighters would be better poisoned.'' That is wrong. If we ask the registrar to carry out such a difficult task, we as legislators must come to some conclusion about which methods are most and least cruel and which are of middling cruelty. Unless the Minister has some view on the matter, I do not understand how the registrar can do his job.

Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman is missing the point. The onus is on the applicant who wants to undertake the activity to show, first, that it is necessary and, secondly, that the method that he has chosen of undertaking the necessary control is the least cruel. That is the central principle of the Bill.

James Gray: It is indeed up to the applicant to make the point, but how on earth is the registrar to judge whether the applicant is talking sense or telling the truth, unless the registrar has some preset view as to which method of controlling vermin is sensible? An applicant may say, ''I represent the Beaufort hunt. I shall demonstrate to you, Mr. Registrar, that the most successful, safest, least cruel way of controlling foxes in Gloucestershire and Wiltshire is by using hounds. Here is my application.'' Surely the registrar must have some guidance from us as to whether he should accept the arguments that the Beaufort hunt produces in defence of its sport.
 Are we to leave the judgment entirely to one individual? Knowing civil servants as I do, having worked in the then Department of the Environment for three years, it is extremely unlikely that the registrar or tribunal would come to a controversial decision on the matter. They will hide behind what we have said in this debate—they will use Hansard to do so—to avoid making controversial decisions, as a result of which this legislation will be challenged in the courts for many years to come. It will not be clear which methods of controlling mammals are good and which are less good unless we come to a view on that. That is the reason for amendment No. 175 and I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee will understand our point: that it is insufficient to state in a biased way simply that hunting with hounds is obviously, by definition, a bad thing and that other methods are, by definition, better. We have seen plenty of evidence that shooting is often worse. As legislators, we must try to send out a signal as to which method of hunting is better. That is our reasoning for amendment No. 175 and I hope that Committee members on both sides will accept that reasoning when we press it to a Division. 
 Amendments Nos. 100 and 101 would amend the Bill so that it fits better with the Minister's description of what it is supposed to do. He said that it should balance the relative utility and cruelty of hunting with dogs in a variety of circumstances against other 
 methods available. That is the Bill's central purpose and amendments Nos. 100 and 101 would help to achieve that. 
 The Minister has reneged on the terms of his letter dated 10 April with regard to the definition of utility, but perhaps what he said about cruelty in that letter has more veracity than what he said about utility. He stated: 
''Cruelty is already dealt with in our legal system in regard to a variety of aspects other than hunting.''
 We have looked at the legal system and what it says about cruelty. Historically, cruelty has always been defined as ''inflicting unnecessary suffering''. That was the definition in the Protection of Animals Act 1911 and every animal welfare and cruelty Bill since has defined it in the same way. The Minister's letter of 10 April states that he will use the definition enshrined in English law. If that is so, he must accept that the law to date—there are countless court cases to demonstrate this—inextricably links the two. English law balances utility against cruelty and there is no sequential test in any law that Parliament has passed or the courts have considered. They have always been considered together. Cruelty means inflicting unnecessary suffering. Amendments Nos. 100 and 101 would bring the Bill into line with the whole corpus of English law on the subject of tests. 
 The Minister pooh-poohed my suggestion, but if the Bill is enacted as printed and amendments Nos. 175, 100 and 101 are not agreed, it is only a matter of time before the Government will be forced to apply the principles elsewhere. The Minister says that it does not matter what the League Against Cruel Sports, or Jackie Ballard and the RSPCA say. They may say that the principles apply only to hunting with hounds and not to any other area of human activity. However, surely he accepts that if Parliament passes one Bill covering one category of animals based on certain principles, lobbyists may then say, ''The Government accepted that if the cruelty is greater than the utility it must be banned. I can demonstrate that there is cruelty in coarse fishing and zero utility. That principle is applied to mammals, so why can it not be applied to fishing?'' It is inconceivable that the Minister would then shrug his shoulders and say, ''I'm awfully sorry, that was a principle that we agreed on hunting because we don't like people with red coats galloping around the countryside, but it does not apply to fishing because millions of Labour voters fish so we must not apply the same principles.'' My hon. Friends quoted comments made by Jackie Ballard and others that demonstrate that the Government will come under great pressure in subsequent years to apply the same principles to all sorts of activities.

Tony Banks: For the sake of brevity, I shall ignore the hon. Gentleman's grotesque description of the two sides of the argument, but he is right in saying that people will come along and try to persuade. That is certain. Plenty of people believe that all sorts of things that are now being done are wrong and should be banned, but the acid test is whether there will be a majority in Parliament. If there is not, what the hon. Gentleman is saying now in theory is correct, but in practice it is nonsense.

James Gray: What the hon. Gentleman describes can reasonably be called the dictatorship of the majority.
Mr. Banks rose—

James Gray: The hon. Gentleman is saying in his own little way, ''These principles are right, fair, decent and just in so far as we, the Labour party, with an enormous majority in Parliament have decided to apply them to hunting with hounds.'' He is saying ''We, because of our large majority, have chosen to apply these principles comparing utility and suffering to hunting with hounds because we believe it to be a bad thing to have people in red coats, horses, toffs and all that''—all the old arguments. He is saying, ''Because we have a large majority in Parliament and we believe that many of our voters support coarse fishing, we will not allow the same principles to be applied to coarse fishing. The RSPCA can say that, the League Against Cruel Sports can say that, all kinds of people out there can say things but, because we have a large majority in Parliament and because we believe that coarse fishing is a good thing, we do not intend to pay any attention to them.''
 That may be the case with regard to this Parliament and to the Labour party. Indeed, the Minister reminds us that it is a Labour party manifesto commitment not to do anything about shooting or fishing. I accept that entirely. None the less, the logic of accepting the principles of utility and cruelty in sequential tests and the logic of the definition of cruelty laid down in the Bill is that those principles should in future be applied to other sports, and to dog and horse racing as well. If they were not, the Government would come under increasing pressure so to apply them. 
Mr. Michael Foster (Worcester) rose:

Michael Foster: The hon. Gentleman refers to the Labour Government driving this issue through with their big majority in Parliament. Can he confirm that for every vote that has taken place since 1987 on this issue, on the basis of a free vote, it is Parliament as a whole that has spoken and not the Government party driving the issue forward?

James Gray: The hon. Gentleman made an interesting slip. He asked whether I would accept that it is the Government as a whole who have driven this issue. What he meant, if he will forgive me for picking him up, was that it is the House of Commons as a whole, not the Government as a whole, that has driven it through. [Interruption.] No. The hon. Gentleman said ''It is the Government as a whole who have driven this through'', which was an interesting slip of the tongue.

Michael Foster: I know that the standard has not been too good in this Room of late, but clearly the hon. Gentleman completely misheard what I said. I said that it was not the Government who have driven through this issue but Parliament as a whole. The Committee has been enjoined to have a free vote. If the hon. Gentleman does not understand that, heaven help us.

James Gray: It has not been Parliament as a whole, because the House of Lords has not driven this issue
 through; it has always been the House of Commons, with its substantial Labour majority. At all events, the hon. Member for West Ham was arguing that, because the majority of people in this place—most of them are Labour, but that is perhaps by coincidence—dislike hunting with dogs—[Interruption.] If the Parliamentary Private Secretary, the hon. Member for The Wrekin, does not understand, he should not be a PPS. He asked from a sedentary position ''Why is it coincidental? Why is that interesting?'' Let me explain it to him.
 I was accepting the argument of the hon. Member for West Ham that it is a matter not for the Labour party but for individual parliamentarians. The huge majority of the parliamentarians who are opposed to hunting with dogs are members of the Labour party, but that is coincidental. Membership of the Labour party does not define their opposition to hunting with dogs; it is coincidental that they are members of the Labour party. 
Mr. Banks rose—

James Gray: Allow me to make the point.

George Stevenson: Order. I remind hon. Members that the clause is fundamental to the Bill. It is about registration. It is not about the way in which the democratic process has or has not resulted in majorities in the House. Perhaps we could get back to the amendment.

John Gummer: My hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire is being unfair to the hon. Member for West Ham, because he could not be with us earlier and therefore did not hear our arguments with the Minister about the right hon. Gentleman's determination to claim that the two tests were universal moral principles, descending from his moral view. I tried to point out on that occasion, and I believe that the hon. Gentleman agreed with me, that it is perfectly reasonable to have principles behind the Bill and for the Minister to say ''These are the principles that I shall apply in the Bill. They are to do with the Bill; they are not to do with something else. You may or may not think that they are sensible, but I propose them as that.'' However, the Minister tried to tell the Committee that in some way those principles derive from an absolute moral principle. My hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire is properly trying to say that that is not so. If it were, we would have the philosophical and moral problem of having to apply it to everything else. That is not what members of the Committee want to do. We were simply trying to stop the Minister talking, incorrectly, about morally or philosophically right or true.

James Gray: My right hon. Friend is right. The hon. Member for West Ham said that, because a large majority of people in this place want to ban hunting with dogs, we can rest assured that the morality, as my right hon. Friend calls it, will not be applied, in this Parliament at least, to other practices such as—
Alun Michael rose—

James Gray: We have clearly hit a sore spot here, to judge from the way in which Labour Members keep leaping to their feet to intervene. The hon. Member for West Ham says that, because a large majority in this place hate hunting with dogs, we can rest assured that the same principles will not be applied to shooting and fishing. However, if there is to be any intellectual justification for the tests of utility and cruelty provided in the Bill, two things must happen. First, all species of mammals must be considered equally under those tests. That was one of the few things that scientists at Portcullis house agreed on unanimously. Every scientist and every person who took part in those hearings agreed that all species of mammals should be considered together and the tests of utility and cruelty applied to them. That principle has been overridden by the Minister. The second important principle is that, even though, thanks to its large majority, the Labour party does not plan to do anything with regard to shooting and fishing at present, if the principles in the Bill are accepted, sooner or later parliamentarians will inevitably move on to discuss them. Many people have said that they will do so.

Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman should not think that he has got something right when people want to put him straight on certain issues. I dealt in detail in Thursday's debate with the misapprehensions of the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal, which he developed at some length last Tuesday. They were misapprehensions, and we put that straight. It is possible to apply the same principles and, because the evidence is different, reach different conclusions. That is why there are different elements in the Bill. It is perfectly straightforward.

James Gray: The Minister makes an extremely important point. He says that it is possible to apply the evidence and come to different conclusions on different—

Alun Michael: No.

James Gray: Perhaps I can answer the point that I understood the Minister to be making, and he can correct me afterwards. The fact that he is leaping to his feet like a jack-in-the-box perhaps indicates the weakness at the heart of his Bill. I understood him to say that it is possible to apply the same evidence and come to different conclusions on it.

Alun Michael: No. My point was that it is possible to apply the same principles consistently and, if the evidence is different, come to different conclusions. It is the reverse of the hon. Gentleman's point. If he does not understand that, I can see why he is leading himself into confusion.

James Gray: The Minister makes a useful and important point. He says that the principles must be the same; different evidence leads to a different conclusion. It is a good point. Why, then, has he told the registrar ''The principles are not the same with regard to ratting and rabbiting or stag hunting and hare coursing. You may not decide on those principles. You may not decide on the evidence laid before you. Irrespective of the evidence about the least suffering and greatest utility of stag hunting, irrespective of the arguments, you, Mr. Registrar, may not decide on that
 matter. That has previously been decided by me in my ministerial eyrie.''

Alun Michael: The answer is simple. In the case of hare coursing, for instance, the evidence leads one to the conclusion that the tests can never be satisfied, so it would be pointless to put it to the registrar and the tribunal. The hon. Gentleman should have taken on board something that I have said on a number of occasions in the Committee: the same principles have been applied to all the relevant activities. In some cases, it is possible to come to a universal conclusion—for instance, ratting at one extreme and hare coursing at the other. For others, people have the opportunity to make their case, if they believe that they can show utility and demonstrate that they are offering the least cruel way of undertaking the activity.

James Gray: The Minister exposes the true arrogance and intellectual nakedness of his argument. He, in his cleverness, has decided—[Interruption.] From a sedentary position, the Minister says ''the evidence''. I put the following to him. In Portcullis house, he summoned many experts for three days of hearings on the issue—for the first time that I am aware of in Parliament. Very few things were decided there and few unanimous conclusions were reached, although it was a useful exercise. Only one absolutely unanimous, firmly laid-down principle was agreed at Portcullis house. If anyone can remember anyone who disagreed with it even slightly, they should tell me. The League Against Cruel Sports, the scientists who were both for and against hunting, and everyone else who took part in the hearings agreed on one thing: the tests of utility and cruelty must be applied to all animals. The Minister has decided for his own reasons that he will override that decision.
 In a dictatorial way, the Minister is concluding that there is ''incontrovertible evidence'' that stag hunting is by definition cruel. He will not allow anyone else a view on that matter, and the Bill ensures that stag hunting must be banned. Equally, he has concluded that ratting and rabbiting must be allowed. Only six months ago, the Minister was sitting in this Room saying that all fox hunting with hounds was by definition cruel and wicked and should be abolished. He is now saying that we should apply the test. 
 The separation of the three tests is one intellectual gap at the heart of the Bill. There is a second intellectual gap. If the Minister is going to ask the registrar to come to a sensible, widely acceptable view on why some practices are allowed while others are forbidden, we must say, ''We have considered the matters, listened to the scientists, and had hearings at Portcullis house. Here is the hierarchy of suffering as we understand it. We believe that snaring may or may not be more cruel that shooting by day.'' It seems reasonable that we should lay such things down if there is not to be an intellectual gap at the centre of the Bill.

Edward Garnier: Surely the short point is that the Bill is not driven by any principle except that of political expediency. The Minister—[Interruption.] He may well be disgraceful, I cannot help him with that. The Minister is driven by the political needs of his colleagues, and the pressure that they are under from
 those outside the House on the issue. That is exposed no more clearly than in clause 11, where the Bill allows the Secretary of State to make payments of money to so-called animal welfare bodies, but no one else. It is a bodged Bill.

James Gray: My hon. and learned Friend makes an extremely important point, which we shall discuss under clause 11. He is right in saying that if one considers the tests of utility and cruelty in their own terms, there are two huge intellectual holes at the heart of the Bill. First, the Government have chosen arrogantly to discount two groups of mammals, and secondly they have given the registrar no sensible, intellectually coherent way of coming to a judgment about that.
 We have spent enough time on cruelty and we need to move on. My hon. and learned Friend makes an extremely important point. Because of the intellectual gap at the heart of the Government's argument, the nakedness of the Bill is exposed. It does not concern animal welfare or the least suffering. Unless amendments Nos. 100, 101 and 175 are accepted, a particular form of human behaviour will be banned. If the amendments are not accepted, the Bill becomes a worthless piece of camouflage for a stealth ban on hunting. I commend the amendments to the Committee. 
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes 22.

Question accordingly negatived.

George Stevenson: We now come to amendment No. 131.

Lembit Öpik: On a point of order, Mr. Stevenson. I am a little confused about the next group of amendments, which seem to refer to clauses as far as clause 38. I should be grateful for your clarification of which amendments we are discussing. I assume that there may be a clerical error.

George Stevenson: Yes, indeed, the next group of amendments is substantial and we shall be discussing all of them.

Alan Whitehead: I beg to move amendment No. 131, in
clause 8, page 3, line 11, leave out 'hunting' and insert 'pest control'.

George Stevenson: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 132, in 
clause 8, page 3, line 11, after 'mammals' and insert 'with dogs'.
 Amendment No. 133, in 
clause 8, page 3, line 13, leave out 'hunted' and insert 'controlled'. 
Amendment No. 134, in 
clause 8, page 3, line 26, leave out 'hunting' and insert 'pest control'.
 Amendment No. 135, in 
clause 8, page 3, line 27, after 'mammals' and insert 'with dogs'.
 Amendment No. 136, in 
clause 8, page 3, line 29, leave out 'hunt' and insert 'control pests by hunting'.
 Amendment No. 137, in 
clause 9, page 3, line 38, leave out 'Hunting' and insert 'Pest Control with Dogs'.
 Amendment No. 138, in 
clause 9, page 3, line 42, leave out 'Hunting' and insert 'Pest Control with Dogs'.
 Amendment No. 139, in 
clause 10, page 4, line 6, leave out 'Hunting' and insert 'Pest Control with Dogs'.
 Amendment No. 140, in 
clause 10, page 4, line 7, leave out 'Hunting' and insert 'Pest Control with Dogs'.
 Amendment No. 141, in 
clause 13, page 4, line 29, leave out 'Hunting' and insert 'Pest Control with Dogs'.
 Amendment No. 142, in 
clause 13, page 4, line 37, leave out 'hunt' and insert 'control'.
 Amendment No. 143, in 
clause 13, page 5, line 3, leave out 'hunting' and insert 'pest control activity'.
 Amendment No. 144, in 
clause 14, page 5, line 8, leave out 'hunting' and insert 'pest control with dogs'.
 Amendment No. 145, in 
clause 14, page 5, line 20, leave out 'hunt' and insert 'control'.
 Amendment No. 146, in 
clause 14, page 5, line 21, leave out 'hunt' and insert 'control pests with dogs'.
 Amendment No. 147, in 
clause 14, page 5, line 23, leave out 'hunting' and insert 'pest control'.
 Amendment No. 148, in 
clause 14, page 5, line 25, leave out 'hunt' and insert 'control pests with dogs'.
 Amendment No. 149, in 
clause 14, page 5, line 30, leave out 'hunting' and insert 'pest control'.
 Amendment No. 150, in 
clause 14, page 5, line 32, leave out 'hunting' and insert 'pest control with dogs'.
 Amendment No. 151, in 
clause 14, page 5, line 34, leave out 'hunting' and insert 'pest control'.
 Amendment No. 152, in 
clause 17, page 7, line 3, leave out 'hunting' and insert 'pest control with dogs'.
 Amendment No. 153, in 
clause 17, page 7, line 21, leave out 'hunting' and insert 'pest control with dogs'.
 Amendment No. 154, in 
clause 17, page 7, line 30, leave out 'hunting' and insert 'pest control with dogs'.
 Amendment No. 155, in 
clause 19, page 7, line 43, leave out 'hunting' and insert 'pest control with dogs'.
 Amendment No. 156, in 
clause 19, page 8, line 5, leave out 'hunting' and insert 'pest control with dogs'.
 Amendment No. 157, in 
clause 19, page 8, line 14, leave out 'hunting' and insert 'pest control with dogs'.
 Amendment No. 158, in 
clause 22, page 8, line 34, leave out 'hunting' and insert 'pest control'.
 Amendment No. 159, in 
clause 22, page 8, line 36, leave out 'hunting' and insert 'pest control'.
 Amendment No. 160, in 
clause 27, page 10, line 12, leave out 'hunting' and insert 'pest control'.
 Amendment No. 161, in 
clause 27, page 10, line 18, leave out 'hunting' and insert 'pest control with dogs'.
 Amendment No. 162, in 
clause 27, page 10, line 27, leave out 'hunts' and insert 'controls pests'.
 Amendment No. 163, in 
clause 27, page 10, line 29, leave out 'hunting' and insert 'pest control'.
 Amendment No. 164, in 
clause 28, page 10, line 38, leave out 'hunting' and insert 'pest control'.
 Amendment No. 165, in 
clause 28, page 10, line 43, leave out 'hunting' and insert 'controlling pests with dogs'.
 Amendment No. 166, in 
clause 28, page 11, line 2, leave out 'hunting' and insert 'pest control'.
 Amendment No. 167, in 
clause 28, page 11, line 11, leave out 'hunting' and insert 'pest control'.
 Amendment No. 168, in 
clause 30, page 11, line 38, leave out 'hunting' and insert 'pest control'.
 Amendment No. 169, in 
clause 30, page 11, line 39, leave out 'hunting' and insert 'pest control'.
 Amendment No. 170, in 
clause 34, page 13, line 21, leave out 'hunting' and insert 'pest control'.
 Amendment No. 171, in 
clause 34, page 13, line 25, leave out 'hunting' and insert 'pest control'.
 Amendment No. 172, in 
clause 38, page 15, line 10, leave out 'hunts' and insert 'controls pests with dogs'.
 Amendment No. 173, in 
clause 38, page 15, line 12, leave out 'hunting' and insert 'controlling pests with dogs'.
 Amendment No. 117, in 
clause 1, page 1, line 6, after 'registered' insert 
 'for the purpose of pest control'.
 Amendment No. 118, in 
clause 2, page 1, line 8, leave out 'hunting' and insert 'pest control with dogs'.
 Amendment No. 119, in 
clause 2, page 1, line 9, leave out 'hunting' and insert 'Controlling pests with dogs'.
 Amendment No. 120, in 
clause 2, page 1, line 12, leave out 'hunting' and insert 'activity to control pests'.
 Amendment No. 121, in 
clause 2, page 1, line 13, leave out 'Hunting' and insert 'Pest control with dogs'.
 Amendment No. 122, in 
clause 2, page 1, line 14, leave out 'hunting' and insert 'pest control'.
 Amendment No. 123, in 
clause 2, page 1, line 17, leave out 'hunted' and insert 'to be controlled'.
 Amendment No. 124, in 
clause 2, page 1, line 18, leave out 'hunting' and insert 'pest control'.
 Amendment No. 125, in 
clause 2, page 1, line 19, leave out 'hunting' and insert 'pest control'.
 Amendment No. 126, in 
clause 2, page 1, line 21, leave out 'Hunting' and insert 'Pest control with dogs'.
 Amendment No. 127, in 
clause 2, page 2, line 1, leave out 'hunting' and insert 'pest control'.
 Amendment No. 128, in 
clause 2, page 2, line 4, leave out 'hunted' and insert 'to be controlled'.
 Amendment No. 129, in 
clause 2, page 2, line 5, leave out 'hunting' and insert 'pest control'.
 Amendment No. 130, in 
clause 5, page 2, line 26, after 'registered' and insert 
 'for the purpose of pest control'.

Alan Whitehead: I shall attempt to deal with the query raised by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire and explain why the amendments are constructed as they are and what effect they would have on the Bill. We are discussing clause 8 and the amendments start by referring to line 1 of that clause. I have attempted to start from that point and to look at the logical consequences of the amendments as they flow from that point. I thought it would be helpful to the Committee to spin out the logical consequences of the amendments rather than raising them one at a time as we came to each clause. Although they start by referring to clause 8, it is true that they refer to the whole Bill. If hon. Members look at the Bill carefully, they will see that the amendments would not substitute
 ''pest control'' or similar words every time hunting is referred to. I shall attempt to elucidate that point in a moment.
 The word ''hunting'' is used in two different senses in the Bill. In some parts, mainly part 1, it relates to the historical activity—what goes on in hunting and so on. Unless a case can be made for a particular activity using the utility-cruelty test in part 2, that activity will no longer be legal. The word ''hunting'' in part 2 refers to what activities might be possible if the Bill becomes law, yet the nomenclature in the Bill is drafted as if the activities were identical. 
 My right hon. Friend the Minister said a little while ago that clause 8(1) will allow pest control. I suggest that not only will the activities under clause 8 allow pest control; in effect they will be limited to pest control. Clause 8(1) examines what pests might do and lists the various effects that their activities might have. 
 Last week, the hon. Member for North Wiltshire appeared to suggest that vermin control could somehow stand alone and exist as a category in its own right. However, not all animals are vermin all the time. Some mammals are pests in certain circumstances but not in others, depending on what they do. What they do and the effect of that on 
''livestock . . . food for livestock . . . crops . . . growing timber . . . fisheries''
 and so on is set out in clause 8(1). 
 The function of clause 8 is to set out, where an activity is not otherwise exempt, the circumstances in which people or groups might apply for registration for their activities. As that registration relates essentially to circumstances in which mammals are pests, we should call such activities pest control. As I have mentioned to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire, that logic applies to clause 8 and spills over to the rest of the Bill, which is why the consequential amendments apply. Under the amendment, people wishing to undertake pest control with dogs, which is heralded in clause 8, would have to apply to the pest control with dogs tribunal. If they were able to demonstrate how and why they were carrying out pest control with dogs, according to the Bill's provision, they would then be registered by that tribunal. 
 I do not wish to labour the point. In essence, a fairly simple piece of logic stands behind all the amendments, on which I do not need to extemporise greatly.

Edward Garnier: It is not controversial that hunting as presently exercised contains elements of pest control and recreation. Hunting is a sport. Under the amendment, would the dual purpose in hunting as it is currently enjoyed preclude existing hunting from being registered? Would the applicant for a licence have to demonstrate that he were pursuing only pest control? If he were engaged in some form of enjoyment or recreation at the same time as controlling pests, would he be denied a licence?

Alan Whitehead: I am not sure whether the hon. and learned Gentleman has yet fully absorbed clause 8.
 That clause, as my right hon. Friend the Minister has carefully explained, contains two consecutive tests. The first—which, as I have mentioned, essentially relates to the control of pests—is a utility test. Clearly, if people are carrying out activities that have no utility, they will not be registered.

Peter Luff: On a point of order, Mr. Stevenson. Can you confirm that should the amendment be passed, and should the utility test subsequently be amended to reflect concerns that my hon. Friends have raised, we then would have to revisit the amendment because it would no longer be compatible with the reworked utility test?

George Stevenson: Whatever happens to the amendment will be a matter for the Committee and the House. I cannot speculate on what might happen to future amendments, and that would not help the Committee.

Peter Luff: In that case, will the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) give way?

George Stevenson: The hon. Member for Southampton, Test is not on his feet yet.
Dr. Whitehead rose—

Peter Luff: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Dr. Whitehead indicated assent.

Peter Luff: I should like him to reflect on exactly what the phrase ''pest control'' means. ''Control'' has a series of different meanings in different circumstances. I would argue that the work that the Worcestershire hunt and the Croome and West Warwickshire foxhounds do in my constituency is pest control, although it does not involve the total eradication of a species. How tightly defined does he intend ''pest control'' to be?

Alan Whitehead: The definition of ''pest control'' can be teased out by reference to the words ''control'' and ''pest''. Sometimes mammals act in a pestiferous manner; I have mentioned already that all mammals cannot be defined as pests in all circumstances. Indeed, it is what they do in terms of human activities that defines them as pests, rather than their being pests per se. If they are acting in a pestiferous manner, it is reasonable in certain circumstances to consider how to control them. Control does not mean eradication; it means control for the purposes of preventing pestiferous activities that affect human activities. The idea that control simply means wiping out a species is not part of either the definition in the Bill or the definition that I seek to place on the face of the Bill.
 I strongly concur with you, Mr. Stevenson, in that I am attempting to amend the Bill as I see it at the moment. If further amendments at a future date cause my amendments to be revisited, so be it, but I cannot do anything other than look at the Bill as it stands. I cannot anticipate future amendments and attempt to swerve in advance before they are tabled. 
 On fishing, I have tried hard to think of any serious circumstances in which fish might be seen as pests; perhaps a plague of gudgeon at the bottom of my 
 garden. In my view, fish are clearly not pests and would not come within the series of definitions.

James Gray: The hon. Gentleman proposes to delete the word ''hunting'' and to insert the phrase ''pest control''. That would achieve nothing, even from the perspective of those who seek to ban hunting. After all, if hunting were to fail the cruelty and utility tests as they are drafted, it would be banned. Changing ''hunting'' to ''pest control'' will achieve nothing. It seems to us that the only possible purpose behind the insertion of those words is rhetorical. He is seeking to demonstrate that there should be no purpose behind hunting with the exception of pest control, which is something about which I am sure we will be talking later.
 There was an interesting little insight into the hon. Gentleman's thinking when he said that the word ''hunting'' has two meanings. First, it means to hunt to get rid of a pest, which is a legitimate use of the word that he would leave in the Bill. Its second meaning, which he does not like and wants to obliterate and to replace with ''pest control'', is what he described as the things associated with traditional hunting. In other words, what he is talking about has nothing to do with animal welfare and, once again, he is talking about human behaviour. He does not like things, such as the Beaufort hunt, which are traditionally associated with what we call ''hunting''. He does not like people in red coats on horses. 
 Incidentally, the thing that people apparently do not like about the continuation of some form of pest control in Scotland is large numbers of people turning up at the Roxburgh and elsewhere wearing red coats and riding horses. That is said to be a bad thing by definition, despite the fact that the Labour party in Scotland passed the legislation. 
 Given that the amendment's purpose is purely rhetorical, it has no purpose, particularly given that we do not accept the argument that it seeks to advance. It may be instructive to consider an article that appeared recently in The Guardian, which is a journal to which I am sure Government Members would be happy to give their attention: 
''Tony Blair is to woo anti-hunting Labour MPs by accepting a series of backbench amendments to the government's controversial hunting bill which would make it all but impossible for the sport to continue . . . 'The Bill will end the sport of fox hunting because it will only be allowed as a form of pest control,' one government source said. 'You will only be allowed to hunt if you have a pink jacket with Rentokil on the back.'' '

Alun Michael: Given the hon. Gentleman's experience in working with civil servants and the disparaging terms he used earlier in referring to their care in the use of words and concepts, does he think that the quote has the ring of truth about it?

James Gray: First, may I correct the Minister? At no time did I disparage any of my former colleagues in the then Department of the Environment. I had the highest possible respect for them. The record will show that I did not disparage anything that they said.
 Of course, a change in the civil service since the Conservatives left power in 1997 is the high degree of politicisation of the civil service as a whole and the press departments in particular. There is no doubt 
 about that at all. A very large number of Labour party nominees now work in Whitehall press departments, if we are to believe what we read in newspapers.

George Stevenson: Order. I am wondering just how far we shall go with pest control. Will the hon. Gentleman return to the subject of the amendment?

James Gray: I most certainly will. If The Guardian reports a government source as saying—[Hon. Members: ''Source.''] You will not allow us to do it, Mr. Stevenson, but we could get into all kinds of debates about the way in which the press office now works.
 According to The Guardian, a government source—who, apparently, was speaking on behalf of the Minister—said that the Bill would be a pest control Bill. That may give some insight into the thinking behind the amendments. The Government want to do away with hunting as we know it and the human activities associated with it and replace it with something much more directly defined as pest control.

Alun Michael: There is a degree of general Opposition-style knockabout in the hon. Gentleman's contribution. My experience with press officers in three Government Departments is that they undertake their work with objectivity and professionalism; that has not diminished in any way, but in fact has been encouraged by this Government. The hon. Gentleman's remarks verged on attacks on those who cannot reply for themselves. I hope that he will withdraw his allegations; I certainly hope that he will not repeat them.

George Stevenson: Order. I intervened on the hon. Member for North Wiltshire to make precisely that point, but he is perfectly entitled to refer to the contents of the article, Government spokesmen and so on. However, we need not get into the efficiencies or otherwise of press departments over the years.

James Gray: You are entirely right, Mr. Stevenson. Alastair Campbell can no doubt speak for himself.
 It appears from the article that the Government seek to change the Bill in such a way that hunting will become nothing more than pest control. We shall oppose the amendments for three principal reasons. First, they will make it more difficult to redefine utility, which we shall try to do in subsequent amendments. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough mentioned, we will not be able to redefine utility to include various other uses if the amendment were passed; therefore, it is important that we do not allow it to be passed. 
 Secondly, while we argue that there is clear environmental utility in stag hunting and hare coursing, the stag and hare by no stretch of the imagination can be properly described as pests or vermin. Again, our arguments that stag hunting and hare coursing should be allowed would by definition be excluded if we were to change ''hunting'' to ''pest control''. 
 Thirdly, and most importantly, the amendments expose the ignorance of abolitionists about how hunting is actually used as a method of species management as well as pest control. It is not a 
 matter simply of dealing with a pest but of managing a species in such a way that a more extreme form of pest control is not necessary. All one need do is glance at the variety of scenarios; I mentioned one last week, which arose as a result of the foot and mouth disease crisis and meant that species management using hunting was not allowed. Everyone in the Room would view the pest control that followed as entirely unacceptable; 126 foxes were shot in a couple of nights. 
 Pest control could become unacceptable if species management were not allowed to take place properly, as it does when hunting with hounds is used. I do not accept that the phrase ''pest control'' fits the bill at all, but the hon. Member for Southampton, Test may be about to tell us how it does.

Alan Whitehead: I was pondering the science of species management and the distribution of hunts across the nation. I imagine that the hon. Gentleman will enlighten the Committee on the scientific distribution of hunts that allows species management to take place. My recollection is that they are not distributed scientifically and his point is therefore somewhat weakened.

James Gray: On the contrary, the hon. Gentleman's intervention strengthens my point. He is right to say that the recent Game Conservancy Trust study, and a number of other studies that have considered the same sort of thing, came to the conclusion that where hunting with hounds does not exist—primarily in large parts of East Anglia—there is a very small and rather sickly fox population. Where hunting with hounds is reasonably active, as it is in the uplands of Wales, there is a middling-sized population. However, where hunting with hounds is extremely active, as it is in Leicestershire, both the number of foxes and their health are particularly good. There is one further aspect to—

Eric Martlew: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

James Gray: I will in a moment, but I want to bring a particular point to the notice of the Committee first and I have a word to say about the hon. Gentleman before I give way to him. My point is that a recent survey of organised foxhunts across England found that 30 per cent. of the foxes killed suffered from mange. Hon. Members may not know much about mange, so I will point out that the entire fox population of the city of Bristol—that is a very large population—was killed through mange. Mange is a particularly nasty disease affecting foxes and domestic dogs.
 Some 30 per cent. of all foxes caught by organised hunts have mange, but if one used shooting, one would not know whether the foxes had mange or not. [Interruption.] Opposition Members are making some interesting interventions from sedentary positions. When I said that someone shooting would not know whether the fox had mange or not, two or three Members seemed to say, ''Oh yes they would. If they were shooting, they would know whether the fox in question had mange.'' Those Members have obviously 
 never been out shooting foxes. Lord Burns came to a very clear conclusion on this point; the truth of the matter is that one sees the fox for only a few seconds, mainly at night, and there is no way in the world of knowing whether it has mange. [Interruption.] I promise to give way to the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) in a moment—[Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Member for Worcester could contain himself for a second. 
 The hon. Member for Carlisle will probably talk about the spread of foxhunting across his constituency. Last week he made what appears to be a fairly useful point; namely, that there is no foxhunting in his constituency, yet the fox population is perfectly healthy. Broadly speaking, that was his response to the notion that foxhunting adds to species management in his constituency. He may have inadvertently misled the Committee, because a number of foot packs operate in his constituency. Foxhunting takes place in his constituency to quite a reasonable extent, but he is right to say that the packs are not mounted.

Eric Martlew: If the hon. Gentleman reads the record he will find that he has mistaken me for somebody else. My constituency is perhaps 20, 30 or 40 ft above sea level and does not have many fell packs. The point I—

Peter Luff: Foot packs.

Eric Martlew: I am sorry. In my area we have mounted packs; the Cumberland Foxhounds and the Cumberland Farmers. The fell packs are in the Lake district. My point is that there are so many healthy foxes in Leicestershire and elsewhere because hunts breed foxes. Is it not the case that there are artificial earths?

James Gray: First, I apologise to the hon. Gentleman and set the record straight, because I was mistaken; I was referring to the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall). The hon. Member for Carlisle has active foxhunting in his constituency, which is why the fox population is so healthy around Carlisle.
 The hon. Gentleman's suggestion that the fox population in Leicestershire is very healthy because the hunts breed foxes to hunt is demonstrably incorrect. There is no evidence of any kind to say that, and no one has ever said it, but let us imagine for one second that it were true. The notion that hunts are going to breed sufficient foxes to be killed, when organised hunts kill 26,000 foxes every year, is nonsense. Even if it were true that hunts bred foxes, it would be absurd to suggest that fox populations were healthy because of that. 
 One reason that the fox population in such places as Leicestershire, Wiltshire and Gloucestershire is healthy is that hunts are selective killers. They kill foxes with mange—we have heard that 30 per cent. of all foxes killed have mange—and the elderly, infirm and ill of various kinds. They do not kill the young and healthy. Another reason for the strength of the fox population is that hunts move the foxes on. Foxhunting carries out a dispersal operation. A third reason is that hunts 
 hunt intensively in one region one day and in a different one the next day. 
Mr. Banks rose—

James Gray: I shall give way in one moment. The way in which Labour Members are desperate to intervene is very interesting. I suspect that we are hitting some raw nerves here, but foxhunting is a very sensible way of—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Worcester is very keen to tell us something.

Michael Foster: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the health of the fox and that it is very difficult for shooters to identify whether a fox has mange before it is shot. Might I suggest, however, that shooters are probably better able to guess whether a fox has mange than are dogs that are pursuing one? It is easy to identify that a fox has mange with hindsight, once it has been killed and can be examined, but while a fox is being pursued with hounds, those dogs will not know whether it has mange.

James Gray: I am astonished and disappointed that the hon. Gentleman, who tends to be reasonably well informed on hunting with hounds, having spent a number of years studying it—although I totally abhor his views on the subject—should make such an incorrect intervention. Shooting happens at night. The fox suddenly comes into a light in front of a gun and is shot. Everyone must agree that there is no way at all in which shooters can tell whether that fox has mange. The hon. Gentleman suggests that dogs cannot tell that either, but he is quite wrong. Foxes with mange will move much less quickly. A foxhound is a large and relatively slow-moving animal and a fox a relatively fast-moving one. Young, fit foxes tend to get away. It is older and less healthy ones, particularly those with mange, that do not. It is a reasonable presumption that the foxes that hounds catch are older, disabled or injured in some way or have mange. Statistics demonstrate that 30 per cent. of all foxes killed in that way have mange.
 It seems that the use of ''pest control'', as proposed in the amendment, would ignore the real advantages of hunting with hounds as a method of species management. Broadly speaking, good species management means less pest control; that is what it boils down to. The amendment ignores the other definition of utility that we will discuss under later amendments. For those reasons, Conservative Members will oppose the amendment.

Rob Marris: As someone who has put my name to the amendment, I speak in support of it. I am interested in some of the remarks that the hon. Member for North Wiltshire has made. He disagrees with the amendments on three grounds. I find his arguments somewhat specious, and the second and third grounds of his opposition, about species management, can be elided.
 There is logic to his position, because it seems to conform to Conservative party policy to pick on the sick and the infirm. When we are talking about less suffering, it seems irrelevant whether a fox, for example, is sick and is therefore weeded out by a hunting pack of dogs; the fox will still suffer. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman's species management 
 argument in opposition to the amendments is a red herring. The idea that hunting animals in a cruel way that causes unnecessary suffering is justifiable because one ends up, in a Darwinian way, with a few more healthy members of that species does not commend itself to me.

Lembit Öpik: There seem to be two assumptions behind what the hon. Gentleman has said. One is that hunting with dogs is necessarily more cruel than the alternatives. We suffered that argument in a previous sitting, and clearly there is a difference between us on that.
 However, my question is about recreational use. I am sure that the hon. Member for Southampton, Test has considered the element of the hearings that covered this point. Will he respond to what was said in the three-day hearings specifically about recreational use? He seems to be ignoring the fact that there was some consensus that, in certain circumstances, recreational use should be taken as a utility, although I think that we used the word ''benefit''. I shall look it up in the record that I have here. I seek the hon. Gentleman's perspective on that, because it is dangerous to go against some of the important discussions that took place in the hearings, given that their whole purpose was to establish objective facts and find some alignment.

Rob Marris: Why can the recreational aspect of certain types of hunting not be met with drag hunting? That has never been explained to me in a way that I can agree with. Can the hon. Gentleman explain it to me?

Lembit Öpik: The hon. Gentleman treads a dangerous path there. Given our discussions about the universality of principles, if he is saying that it is not acceptable in any circumstances to kill an animal to derive that small pleasure—

Rob Marris: I did not say that.

Lembit Öpik: Let me finish. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that, the fears harboured by those who go fishing and shooting will become real. I hope that he is not saying that. There is an obvious, philosophical implication; in some circumstances, it is acceptable to kill an animal on the basis of recreation. That is an important and established fact. It is similar to the point made in the three-day hearings.
 If that were the case, we must recognise, however uncomfortable it is for the Committee to do so, that we need to hear why foxes—specifically the species ''foxes''—should not be included as an animal that may be killed for recreational benefit.

John Gummer: I accept that the philosophy behind the Bill is that some animals are more equal than others and that every time those who want to make regulation even tougher face this issue, they pretend that they can take a different view about some animals from they take about foxes. That is the crucial moral and philosophic problem that we face here.

Lembit Öpik: I am an optimist, in the sense that I believe in the Committee structure. I believe that if one person puts a stronger argument than another person, that argument will be listened to. We shall see what
 happens. If the right hon. Gentleman's cynicism is confirmed, the point that I have made, which seems philosophically to be fairly robust, must be answered before we exclude foxes explicitly from a possible recreational ambit.

Edward Garnier: The way in which the Committee concludes will endorse not just the cynicism of the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal but reality.
 I do not know whether the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire will deal with the question put by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) about drag hunting. That canard is put out time and time again by those who know little about the subject. The reason why farmers, landowners and land managers allow the hunt to cross their land is because it is of use to them. [Hon. Members: ''Utility.''] It is a matter of utility. They would not be so keen to allow the drag hunt across their land because there is no benefit to the landowner in that at all.

Lembit Öpik: I respond to that as the Minister did earlier. The Bill is not about drag hunting. I do not feel any need to discuss it. The Bill concerns animals that roam in the countryside and, to the credit of the Committee, we all accept that they can be pests. The question is not whether drag hunting should be permitted. I assume that no one is suggesting that drag hunting should be banned. In relation to the amendments—there may be an answer—why is it that hon. Members accept that, in some circumstances, the recreational killing of animals is acceptable, but not for the fox population? I assume that the Minister will elucidate that point to us.
 As hon. Members know, I was very impressed with the quality of debate on those subjects at the hearings. I assume that hon. Members have studied those. It is incumbent on the Minister to say why he has such a different understanding of the recreational point, given that he and I attended all of the three-day sessions, from which some important principles have been derived.

Tony Banks: There are some of us who believe firmly that all recreational killing of animals ought to be banned, and I happen to be one of them. That is a fairly well known fact. However, one also has to face up to another issue. In the end, one has to convince a majority of one's colleagues to go along with an action. It is nonsense to keep saying, ''Why should we only do this when we should be doing everything?'' I should very much like to do everything, but there is no majority to support that. We cannot talk in absolutes in Committee, or on the Floor of the House. It is nonsense to talk in those terms.

Lembit Öpik: That is a rare moment of agreement between the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal, both of whom have said that it is dangerous to talk in absolutes because it takes one to dangerous places. It seems to me helpful and typically honest of the hon. Member for West Ham to confirm what we already knew; he would like
 to ban all recreational killing. Presumably, that would include fishing—

Tony Banks: No.

Lembit Öpik: I will happily give way.

Tony Banks: The only killing that I would accept of fish is when one is eating them, but as someone who has spent many years sitting on river banks, and by canals and lakes, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I did not sit there in order to kill fish. I do not fish any more because of the cruel aspects of it, which I now recognise, but I would not oppose fishing on the grounds that people do it to kill fish. Most coarse anglers do not kill the fish that they catch; the fish are put back.

Lembit Öpik: That is helpful because we are getting to the heart of the amendment. What the hon. Gentleman said is enlightening. In fairness to him, all joking and banter aside, he does hold a philosophically consistent position. He honestly says that he would like to ban killing for recreation. If I understand him correctly—I will allow him to intervene if I am wrong—that philosophical position would lead him to ban the recreational killing of foxes and all other mammals as well that are not to be eaten. I understand that he would seek to ban coarse fishing for the same reasons. He said that there was a cruel element to it. Maybe I misheard him, but if it is cruel, presumably he would like to ban it.

Tony Banks: For the sake of the record and because one's views are so often misrepresented, I said that there is an element of cruelty in fishing. Frankly, we are all here to make a judgment. The element of cruelty in angling is not sufficient to ban it.

Lembit Öpik: In which case, we see the exact point about recreational activity. We all presumably accept that putting a hook in a fish's mouth and then releasing the fish is unnecessary on the basis that it does not provide food. Furthermore, we have established that the hon. Gentleman would not choose to ban that activity. It follows that there must be a counterbalance to the pain that is caused to the fish. I remind hon. Members that the RSPCA has said that fish show signs of feeling pain. The argument must contain a counterbalance, which leads me to assume that he accepts that there is a recreational benefit to the activity. If that is correct, the problem with the amendment is that it discounts to zero any recreational benefit derived from the killing of foxes. There seems to be a contradiction there because, as far as I can understand what the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal said, to follow the path of discounting any recreational benefit derived from foxhunting to zero implies that foxes are in a different class of animal from all the other animals that are we considering.

George Stevenson: Order. The amendment contains two key words; ''hunting'' and ''pest control''. [Hon. Members: ''Three.''] Three key words. It is perfectly legitimate for hon. Members to try to determine with sufficient clarity what ''hunting'' means. It is therefore perfectly legitimate to talk about ''pest control''. I hope that hon. Members will bear that point in mind in their contributions.

Eric Martlew: On recreational pest control, does the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire agree that we draw lines with reference to species? I presume that there is an argument for the hunting of otters, as well as for cock fighting and badger baiting. Those activities contain recreational elements, but I take it that he is not of favour of them. It depends on which species are beyond the pale.

Lembit Öpik: The hon. Gentleman is correct. I have never been foxhunting, shooting or fishing.

Tony Banks: Why are you here then?

Lembit Öpik: I am not arguing on the basis of trying to protect sports in which I kill animals. The amendment is specifically worded to allow pest control, and pest control alone. It discounts recreational benefit to zero because it would not allow it. I hope that I am not straying from the point, but this seems to be exactly the right moment in the debate to raise that issue. My question for the hon. Member for Southampton, Test—and, perhaps, for the Minister—is why is he so strongly against allowing any element of recreational benefit. He has worded the amendment to prevent recreational benefits being factored in; in front of, for example, the registrar.
 In response to the hon. Member for West Ham, I do not do those sports because I am not keen on their recreational benefits. However, it is possible to do them on a purely recreational basis. I am simply saying that there should be an element of recreational benefit that can be submitted to the registrar, because that is what came out of the three-day hearings. If the Minister can satisfy me with a good strong argument on that point, I shall drop it, but he has not done that so far.

Peter Luff: As I listen to the debate, I am wondering whether my two hon. Friends are right. I believe that the amendment may be fatal for hare coursing because there is clearly no element of pest control in that. If we are right to worry about the extension of the principles to other activities not covered by the Bill, it would also have serious implications for shooting. However, foxes are pests, mink are pests, deer are pests and hare are pests, so are the amendments as fundamental as my hon. Friends suggested? The Minister has had a chance to examine the amendments in detail and will have the advice of his officials to back him up. I shall be interested to hear what he has to say because my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough said, rightly, that drag hunting is not an option because it has no utility for landowners. Drag hunting probably takes place only when payment is made to landowners. However, they allow foxhunting on their land because it has a pest control function, which was helpfully defined by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test. Are the amendments fatal?

Alun Michael: It is interesting how seemingly innocent amendments lead us back to principles in the Bill. This short debate has been helpful.
 A couple of misapprehensions need to be dealt with. The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire seemed to be suggesting that we should draw a line, to say that all animals in a quarry species are pests. Clearly, that is not so. There are circumstances in which a specific population of foxes, or specific foxes, may be pests and 
 there are circumstances in which mink are pests, but it is not true that every animal within a quarry species is a pest all the time. My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test made that point very well when he introduced the concept that led to this interesting debate.

James Gray: Are rats always pests and are rabbits always pests?

Alun Michael: There is universal acceptance of the risks posed by rats. Rabbits are largely a nuisance and not a threatened species.
Several hon. Members rose.

Alun Michael: I assume that we shall return to our first debates.

John Gummer: Will the Minister tell me when mink in the wild in Britain are other than pests and whether he can make a distinction between different sorts of rats? I am not an expert on rats, but I understand that some species do no harm and are not pestiferous.

Alun Michael: Very intriguing. We shall return to that when we come to the relevant clauses and I look forward to that.

Edward Garnier: Will the Minister deal with the point made by his hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test; that an animal is defined as a pest by what it does and not by what it is?

Alun Michael: I am content to look at the definitions in clause 8(1), which lists the activities that lead to animals being considered pests. The point of the utility test is to look at the facts and evidence available and then apply the test.
 The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire seemed to reject the idea that drag hunting has recreational value.

Peter Luff: If I did, I withdraw my comment entirely. I did not intend to say that, because I do not believe it. If I gave that impression, I wish to correct it.

Alun Michael: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for clarifying what was obviously a misapprehension on my part. It is clear that activities such as drag hunting have no utility in the sense of controlling pests, but they do not lead to setting one group of animals on another. Therefore, they do not fall within the ambit of the Bill. Drag hunting is a classic example of how recreational utility can be recognised, but it is recognised because the issues that are raised by hunting do not apply.
 The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire also commented on recreational use. The debate on hunting has become confused over the years because issues have been raised that are not relevant to the key question that must be answered when we decide what we are to do about hunting. 
 Matters that have nothing to do with the chasing or killing of animals with dogs have been imported into the debate; some people wear red coats, some people enjoy watching dogs work, some people enjoy the stirrup cup or the social elements of hunting, some people enjoy a day's riding. None of those issues 
 should be of the slightest concern to Parliament in reaching a conclusion on hunting. They are not the reasons why hunting has been an issue for the House of Commons for many years. Members have said that the cruelty must be addressed; that is the issue. 
 Clause 8(1) sets out the test that determines whether pursuing a quarry animal is necessary. We shall debate whether criteria should be added to or subtracted from the list—that is fair enough—but it defines how utility would be recognised. 
 The Bill prevents unnecessary suffering because clause 8(2) then applies the cruelty test, which is straightforward. The intervention of the hon. and learned Member for Harborough was interesting. He argued that farmers tolerate hunting if it is useful. The issue is a good deal more complex than that, but we will cover it in later amendments, including aspects to do with land ownership. 
 The recreational use of hunting—discussed by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire and echoed by others—fails the test of utility as set out in clause 8(1). It seems to me that the hon. Gentleman is arguing that people should be allowed to cause suffering for no reason or utility; for nothing that improves the management of livestock, the protection of crops and so on. Surely, such activity is not justified, given the debates about hunting over many years.

Lembit Öpik: As the Minister knows, I very much agree with the inclusion of something like clause 8. However, he is right that I have a concern with the list. It is hard to understand how we would factor a degree of recreational utility into the equation if we accepted the amendments. It seems contradictory to include pest control at the top of the list and recreational considerations further down. What is the Minister's perspective on the matter?

Alun Michael: I am grateful for that clarification from the hon. Gentleman, but the matter is not relevant to the judgment that Parliament will ask the registrar and the tribunal to make. They must consider the specific utility of the activity. If, as a side effect, someone enjoys himself in the fresh air, would any member of the Committee oppose that?

Peter Luff: Yes.

Alun Michael: The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire is opposed to people enjoying themselves.

Peter Luff: I suspect that the hon. Member for West Ham would oppose it.

Alun Michael: The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire should contain his suspicions and let people speak for themselves, including my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, who frequently does.
 By introducing the concept of recreational hunting, hon. Members seek to make judgments outwith the tests of utility. That is a mistake. During the evidence sessions in Portcullis house, and the representations of many arguing for hunting, there were few suggestions of that sort. Most were saying that hunting had utility because it controls pests. The Bill allows people to show evidence if that is their genuine reason for undertaking the activity. The enjoyment is a side benefit.

Lembit Öpik: I agree that it is a side benefit, but it is still a benefit. I hope that the Minister will accept that while that is not the main reason to go hunting, it seems a little bit inflexible not to include it in the list. Does the Minister agree that I consider recreation to be a utility, but that he is defining utility as a form of pest control? That is a judgment that we need to make.

Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. We neither seek to encourage nor prevent people from enjoying an activity. That is not relevant to the judgments made under the provision. The judgment that one has to make in pursuit of the philosophy of the Bill is to ask whether there is genuine utility in pursuing a particular quarry species. If there is, one applies the cruelty test. I regard any enjoyment people may experience—being in the open air and so on—as irrelevant to the judgement that Parliament makes, or the judgment that people make on its behalf.

Gregory Barker: Does the Minister accept that if one applies his logic, there is a conceivable defence of foxhunting, but there is no conceivable defence of shooting driven game birds?

Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman always seeks to return to activities that fall outside the ambit of the Bill. It is not helpful to do so. Similar comments were made about fishing a few moments ago. There are judgments to be made. The fishing organisations regulate their activity. They tell their members what they regard as acceptable. Those judgments are made in the context of fishing, which is a quite different activity that does not involve setting one set of mammals on another species. That is not a matter for the Bill. To extrapolate as the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle seeks to do is not helpful or relevant and will not inform future legislative proposals.
 I have three questions for the hon. Member for North Wiltshire. He raised several issues that were somewhat puzzling. He seemed to be saying that hounds only chase the old and the vulnerable foxes 
 when they go out, as if the hounds undertake some sort of health check on the fox before they decide to chase it. Is that really what he meant? Would he like to clarify that point during the debate, or does he think that he might make matters worse if he were to do so? 
 I suspect he may want to correct me on the following, but I am going from what he actually said. He referred to the number of foxes with mange that are caused by organised hunts in Bristol. I suspect that was a slip of the tongue—[Hon. Members: ''No, he did not.''] Yes, he did. He was quite clear. It is also clear that there is a very healthy fox population in towns and cities. Is the healthy population of foxes on the other side of the river a consequence of the activities of the Lambeth hunt? Is he trying to say that healthy populations in the countryside—although he talked of the ones that are chased being unhealthy—are a result of hunt activities? Where is his logic in relation to towns and cities?

James Gray: The Minister asks one extremely sensible question and two extremely silly ones. I shall try to answer the first. Of course I did not suggest that mange in Bristol was caused by organised hunts, nor did I suggest that it was caused by such hunts anywhere. I said that 30 per cent. of all foxes killed elsewhere—not in the city of Bristol—have mange. That demonstrates that hunts tend to take out foxes with mange. To demonstrate how unpleasant the disease of mange is, I made the point that every single fox in the city of Bristol was killed by mange, not by hunts. It is very simple. The Minister is not terribly bright about such matters. Every fox in the city of Bristol was killed by mange. There are no organised hunts in the city of Bristol. I hope that I have made that clear.
 It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. 
 Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.